Recently in our series on defending our faith, we've considered two myths: neutrality and human autonomy. Neutrality is a myth as no one and nothing is neutral. They are either for Christ and His Lordship or they are against Him. Further, everyone interprets facts through presuppositions. Remember that a presupposition is a foundational assumption about reality. In addition, everyone has a worldview which is basically interconnected presuppositions that make up one’s view of the world and everything in it. Regarding autonomy, recognizing Christ’s Lordship, we both know and confess that we aren't autonomous, but rather dependent on Him.
In discussion with an unbeliever, we engage knowing that the believer and the unbeliever reason in very different ways. We know that reason can't be neutral. The reason of the unbeliever is flawed. It can't be brought into subjection to God because they're unbelievers with reason that is in rebellion against God. Dr. Cornelius Van Til teaches that as we talk with an unbeliever, we must do so presupposing the triune God of the Bible. It's only when we begin there that we can have a proper understanding of logic and everything else. We do so not reasoning to the triune God, but rather reasoning from the triune God.
Practically, in regards to how believers should carry this apologetic encounter, Van Til says we respectfully and gently engage using the transcendental method via a transcendental argument for the existence of God. What does this look like? It looks like a conversation with the unbeliever seeking to understand their view of God, His existence, and their worldview. Two good and helpful questions to ask regarding their truth claims are 1) What do you mean by that? and 2) How do you know that is true? (my questions, not Van Til's) As the answers to these questions and others are brought out, it's good and right to thank them for what they shared, and then walk them through, biblically, where and how their presuppositions and worldview falls short and lead to futility apart from the triune God, leading to a Gospel conversation about the person and work of Christ for sinners.
Regarding arguing transcendentally, Van Til states in his work, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, "One more point should be noted on the question of method, namely, that from a certain point of view, the method of implication may also be called a transcendental method. We have already indicated that the Christian method uses neither the inductive nor the deductive method as understood by the opponents of Christianity, but that it has elements of both induction and of deduction in it, if these terms are understood in a Christian sense. Now when these two elements are combined, we have what is meant by a truly transcendental argument. A truly transcendental argument takes any fact of experience which it wishes to investigate, and tries to determine what the presuppositions of such a fact must be, in order to make it what it is. [emphasis added] An exclusively deductive argument would take an axiom such as that every cause must have an effect, and reason in a straight line from such an axiom, drawing all manner of conclusions about God and man. A purely inductive argument would begin with any fact and seek in a straight line for a cause of such an effect, and thus perhaps conclude that this universe must have had a cause. Both of these methods have been used, as we shall see, for the defense of Christianity. Yet neither of them could be thoroughly Christian unless they already presupposed God. [emphasis added] Any method, as was pointed out above, that does not maintain that not a single fact can be known unless it be that God gives that fact meaning, is an anti Christian method. On the other hand, if God is recognized as the only and the final explanation of any and every fact, neither the inductive nor the deductive method can any longer be used to the exclusion of the other. That this is the case can best be realized if we keep in mind that the God we contemplate is an absolute God. Now the only argument for an absolute God that holds water is a transcendental argument. [emphasis added] A deductive argument as such leads only from one spot in the universe to another spot in the universe. So also an inductive argument as such can never lead beyond the universe. In either case there is no more than an infinite regression. In both cases it is possible for the smart little girl to ask, “If God made the universe, who made God?” and no answer is forthcoming. This answer is, for instance, a favorite reply of the atheist debater, Clarence Darrow. But if it be said to such opponents of Christianity that, unless there were an absolute God their own questions and doubts would have no meaning at all, there is no argument in return. There lie the issues. It is the firm conviction of every epistemologically self conscious Christian that no human being can utter a single syllable, whether in negation or in affirmation, unless it were for God’s existence. Thus the transcendental argument seeks to discover what sort of foundations the house of human knowledge must have, in order to be what it is. It does not seek to find whether the house has a foundation, but it presupposes that it has one. We hold that the anti-Christian method, whether deductive or inductive, may be compared to a man who would first insist that the statue of William Penn on the city hall of Philadelphia can be intelligently conceived of without the foundation on which it stands, in order afterwards to investigate whether or not this statue really has a foundation." (Van Til, 19)
I hope this brief introduction to the transcendental argument helps you to both think more deeply about apologetic conversations, as well as helps you to begin putting meat on the bones regarding the conversation that needs to be had. If any of this sounds complicated or overwhelming to think through, or understand, let me know. I'm happy to help bring clarity, by God's grace.
Older
Top
